Introduction:Despite the theory that long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics should be more likely to improve adherence, reduce gaps in therapy, and prevent relapse compared with oral antipsychotics, there is little published evidence on this issue, specifically in patients with early psychosis.Methods:Patients with a new diagnosis for a psychotic disorder between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2014, were retrospectively evaluated during a 12-month duration. The primary outcomes were adherence and persistence. Adherence was determined by proportion of days with medication, and persistence was defined as zero gaps in medication therapy. The secondary outcome was the number of times a psychiatric acute care service was used. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on their antipsychotic prescription history: oral only, LAI only, or both formulations at separate times throughout the study period.Results:Forty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. The average proportions of days with medication were 32%, 76%, and 75% for the oral, LAI, and both formulations groups, respectively (P < .001). For medication persistence, there were 32 patients (91%), 3 patients (75%), and 5 patients (63%) with at least 1 gap in therapy for the oral, LAI, and both formulations groups, respectively (P = .098). For acute care services, there was a median number of zero acute care visits for each of the 3 groups (P = .179). A post hoc subgroup analysis found medication adherence to be statistically different between the oral and LAI groups.Discussion:Long-acting injectable antipsychotics were associated with better adherence compared with oral antipsychotics in patients with early psychosis.

No abstract

Objective. To determine the validity and reliability of the Pharmacist Interprofessional Competencies Tool (PICT). Methods. Faculty members at Ferris State University, College of Pharmacy developed the PICT, which has five interprofessional criterion (collaboration, ownership, respect, engagement, and application) and four competency levels (unacceptable, novice, competent, and proficient) to assess the interprofessional competencies of pharmacy students. Fourteen pharmacy faculty members were trained in how to use the PICT and then used it to assess students' behaviors in four to six video-recorded interprofessional education (IPE) learning activities. A subset of these faculty members evaluated the video-recorded IPE learning activities using two other previously validated interprofessional assessment tools. Psychometric analysis of the PICT, including internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, was conducted, along with a correlation analysis and factor analysis, and the results were compared to those from the other validated assessment tools. Results. The overall rating of the internal consistency of the PICT was excellent and item-total correlations of the individual criterion were fair to good, with the exception of the respect criterion. The PICT demonstrated excellent overall inter-rater reliability, and individual criterion rated as fair to excellent with the exception of the respect criterion. Specific dimensions of the PICT showed high convergence with previously validated interprofessional assessment tools. Conclusion. The PICT exhibited overall validity and reliability as an assessment tool for measuring the interprofessional competencies of pharmacy students. In establishing the overall validity and reliability of the assessment tool, the respect criterion was not proved to be reliable or valid. Additional training and slight modifications to the PICT and associated IPE learning activities are planned to assist with longitudinal assessment of student performance across the curriculum.

The 2019-2020 Student Affairs Standing Committee addressed charges related to professional identity formation (PIF) in order to set direction and propose action steps consistent with Priority #3.4 of the AACP Strategic Plan, which states "Academic-practice partnerships and pharmacist-involved practice models that lead to the progress of Interprofessional Practice (IPP) are evident and promoted at all colleges and schools of pharmacy." To this end, the committee was charged to 1) outline key elements of PIF, 2) explore the relationship between formal curricular learning activities and co-or extra-curricular activities in supporting PIF, 3) determine the degree to which there is evidence that strong PIF is embedded in student pharmacists' educational experience, and 4) define strategies and draft an action plan for AACP's role in advancing efforts of schools to establish strong PIF in pharmacy graduates. This report describes work of the committee in exploring PIF and provides resources and background information relative to the charges. The committee offers several suggestions and recommendations for both immediate and long-term action by AACP and members to achieve goals related to integrating PIF into pharmacy education. The committee proposes a policy statement relative to the committee charges. Furthermore, the report calls upon the profession to develop a unified identity and incorporate support for PIF into pharmacy education, training, and practice.

No abstract

In the abdominal, orthopedic, and pediatric surgical populations, CI NSAIDs represent a feasible alternative modality for perioperative pain control.

Postoperative CI ketorolac improved pain control while reducing opioid consumption and adverse effects.

IntroductionAlthough letters of reference (LORs) are required for postgraduate year one (PGY1) residency applications and used to distinguish between candidates, an evaluation of residency program director (RPD) perceptions and values surrounding LORs has not been described.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to describe PGY1 RPDs' processes, values, and perceptions surrounding LORs.MethodsThis was a cross‐sectional descriptive survey. After assessing content validity, the Education and Training Practice and Research Network (PRN) taskforce sent a 25‐item electronic survey to 1266 PGY1 RPDs. Survey questions captured program demographics, LOR requirements, processes for LOR review, and perceptions about the value of LORs. Two open‐ended questions solicited suggestions for LORs and the existing standardized form; responses were evaluated via thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 291 (24%) programs completed the survey. LORs were rated as extremely or quite valuable by 82% of respondents and moderately valuable by 16% of respondents. Scoring rubrics for LOR evaluation were used by 79% of programs, and performance ratings were reported to impact interview consideration by a majority of programs. Accuracy, detailed comments, and inclusion of specific candidate strengths and areas for improvement were rated as extremely or quite important characteristics by 90% or more of respondents. Specific strengths were reported to be present in LORs more than half of the time by 81% of programs; however, accuracy, detailed comments, and inclusion of specific areas for improvement were only reported to be present about half the time or less by 41%, 63%, and 63% of respondents. Among 207 suggestions submitted to improve LOR utility, common themes included a desire for LOR authors to have candid discussions with candidates prior to letter writing, to contextualize their relationship with the candidate, and provide honest and specific assessments.ConclusionLORs remain highly valued by PGY1 RPDs during application review. Several notable findings were observed, resulting in recommendations for LOR authors, residency applicants, and the standardized LOR form.